[ show plain text ]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com]On Behalf Of Rakesh Bhandari
> Sent: Saturday, April 15, 2000 1:37 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com
> Subject: [OPE-L:2854] Re: Partial Reply toFreds on Althusser
> As for money as commodity/non commodity, it has been pointed out
> before that the money fetish is as if the concept of Fruit is not
> derived from the existence of apples, oranges but that oranges, apples,
> etc. are mere mundane manifestations, predicates of Fruit. How can
> one particular fruit, say oranges, become Fruit itself of which all
> other fruits but instantiations.
Oranges are a species of the genus fruit. It is the abstract object Fruit of
which apples, etc. are manifestations (no 'but', or in the more usual
tendentious term 'mere' about it).
Of what genus is a Money a species?
> Money however is a real hypostatization. As absurd is that is.
No more (or less) absurd than an actual manifestation of an abstract object
(Value). In both cases the absurdity is that of the capitalist system, not
of some erroneous hegeloid deviation.
(btw, I do not agree with Jerry that OPE-lers can not be legitimately
expected to turn to their dictionaries, glossaries, encyclopaedias and other
forms of potted knowledge now and again ... .)
Dr Michael Williams
Economics and Social Sciences
De Montfort University
tel: +1908 834876
[Home: +1703 768641]
fax: 0870 133 1147
[This message may be in html, and any attachments may be in MSWord 2000. If
you have difficulty reading either, please let me know.]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 30 2000 - 19:59:44 EDT